Copyleft/guide Changeset - b17d0710acbe

Changeset - b17d0710acbe

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-20 21:34:09
bkuhn@ebb.org

Reword paragraph.

1 file changed with 15 insertions and 17 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 Products, the provision addresses the fundamental problem. Therefore, the
 technical restrictions provisions to User Products.
 % FIXME-LATER: link \href to USC 2301
 The core of the User Product definition is a subdefinition of ``consumer
 product'' taken verbatim from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal
 consumer protection law in the United States: ``any tangible personal
 property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
 purposes.''\footnote{15 U.S.C.~\S\ 2301.}  The United States has had
 three decades of experience of liberal judicial and administrative
 interpretation of this definition in a manner favorable to consumer
 rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product definition itself
 has been influential in the United States and Canada, having been
 adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}  We
 mean for this body of interpretation to guide interpretation of the
 consumer product subdefinition in section 6, which will provide a degree
 of legal certainty advantageous to device manufacturers and downstream
 licensees alike.  Our incorporation of such legal interpretation is in
 no way intended to work a general choice of United States law for GPLv3
 as a whole.  The paragraph in section 6 defining ``User Product'' and
 ``consumer product'' contains an explicit statement to this effect,
 bracketed for discussion.  We will decide whether to retain this
 statement in the license text after gathering comment on it.
 consumer protection law in the USA found in 15~USC~\S2301: ``any tangible
 personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
 purposes.''  The United States has had three decades of experience of liberal
 judicial and administrative interpretation of this definition in a manner
 favorable to consumer rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product
   definition itself has been influential in the USA and Canada, having been
   adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}
 Ideally, this body of interpretation\footnote{The FSF, however, was very
   clear that incorporation of such legal interpretation was in no way
   intended work as a general choice of USA law for GPLv3.} will guide
 interpretation of the consumer product subdefinition in GPLv3~\S6, and this
 will hopefully provide a degree of legal certainty advantageous to device
 manufacturers and downstream licensees alike.
 One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that
 ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage.  That is, in cases where

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)